שבועות 4:2 — Soncino English Talmud

it was hidden from him [i.e., forgotten], therefore, it must have been known to him at the beginning; then Scripture says: and he knows of it [i.e., at the end], hence, knowledge is essential both at the beginning and at the end. If so, why does Scripture say: it was hidden from him — twice? — In order to make him liable both in the case of forgetfulness of the uncleanness, and in the case of forgetfulness of the Temple or holy food. Concerning the laws of uncleanness, then, Rabbi has his own reason; but concerning oaths, where we do not find that he gives a reason of his own, how do we know [that he holds OATHS ARE TWO, SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR]? — It is a reasonable assumption; for, what is R. Akiba's reason for including oaths in the past tense for liability? — Because he expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’! We find that Rabbi also expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’. For it is taught: Rabbi said: The first-born of man may be redeemed by all things except bonds; but the Rabbis said: The first-born of man may be redeemed by all things except slaves, bonds, and lands. What is Rabbi's reason? — He expounds [the verse in accordance with the principle of] ‘amplifications and limitations’: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old — the verse amplifies; according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver — the verse limits; shalt thou redeem — the verse again amplifies; since it amplifies, limits, and amplifies, it includes everything, and excludes only bonds. But the Rabbis expound [the verse in accordance with the principle of] ‘generalisations and specifications’: And those that are to be redeemed from a month old — the verse generalises; according to thy valuation, five shekels of silver — the verse specifies; shalt thou redeem — the verse again generalises; since it generalises, specifies, and generalises, you must include in the ‘generalisation’ only those things which are similar to the ‘specification’: just as the specification is clearly movable and of intrinsic value, so all things which are movable and of intrinsic value [may be used for redeeming the first-born]; but you must exclude lands, which are not movable, and slaves, which have been likened to lands, and bonds, which, though they are movable, are not of intrinsic value. [Hence, since Rabbi expounds ‘amplifications and limitations’, he agrees with R. Akiba.] Rabina said to Amemar: Does Rabbi really expound ‘amplifications and limitations’? Surely, Rabbi expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’! For it is taught: [Then thou shalt take] an awl . . . Hence I deduce that an awl may be used; whence do I deduce also a sharp wooden prick, thorn, needle, borer, or stylus? — It is said: Thou shalt take — anything that may be taken by hand. This is the opinion of R. Jose, son of R. Judah. Rabbi said: and awl — just as an awl is of metal, so only those things which are of metal [may be used]. And we explained the reason for their argument thus: Rabbi expounds ‘generalisations and specifications’, and R. Jose son of R. Judah expounds^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ

^ᵃnote:Lev. V, 3.
^ᵇnote:This proves that the statement THE LAWS OF UNCLEANNESS ARE TWO SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR represents the view of Rabbi.
^ᶜnote:Infra 26a. R. Akiba expounds the verse (Lev. V, 4) thus: If any one swear clearly with his lips — ‘amplification; (i.e., all oaths); to do evil or to do good — ‘limitation’ (i.e., this particularisation limits the general statement to oaths which are similar to the particular in that they are in the future tense); Whatsoever it be that a man utter clearly with an oath — another ‘amplification’ (this additional general statement serves to amplify the particular, adding even oaths which are not similar to it, i.e., even those in the past tense, and excluding only swearing to transgress a precept).
^ᵈnote:Bek. 51a.
^ᵉnote:V. Num. XVIII, 15, 16.
^ᶠnote:Representing the opinion of teachers in general. And those that are to be redeemed is a general statement, implying that they may be redeemed with all things; this is followed by a particular statement five shekels of silver, limiting redemption to that alone; then follows another general statement shalt thou redeem — apparently with all things. According to Rabbi, the particular (five shekels) implies that the first generalisation is to be taken as including all things which are similar to the particular, and the final generalisation adds even things which are not entirely similar to the particular, excluding only that which is most dissimilar. According to the Rabbis, the particular limits the first generalisation to that particular alone, excluding even similar things, but the final generalisation adds all similar things, excluding all things which are dissimilar. Though in this verse both generalisations precede the particular (and those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thy valuation, for five shekels of silver), the procedure is, in such a case, to assume that the particular is between the two generalisations. Rabbi's method of exposition is called ‘amplification and limitation’ (Ribbu u-Mi'ut yughnu huchr); the other is called ‘generalisation and specification’ (Kelal u-ferat yrpu kkf). The former is more inclusive than the latter.
^ᵍnote:Lev. XXV, 46: And ye may make them (the slaves) and inheritance for your children, to hold for a possession.
^ʰnote:Bek. 51a.
^ⁱnote:Deut. XV, 17, referring to a Hebrew slave who does not desire to be set free at the end of six years.
^ʲnote:Explaining the verse thus: Thou shalt take — a ‘generalisation’; an awl — a ‘specification’; and thrust it through his ear and into the door — another ‘generalisation’ (i.e., anything that may be thrust); in such a case, only those things which are similar to the specification (in the present instance, made of metal) are included. But R. Jose includes everything, excluding only the use of a poison which is powerful enough to bore a hole.